ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparison of force adaptation in toddlers and adults during a drawer opening task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adapting movements to rapidly changing conditions is fundamental for interacting with our dynamic environment. This adaptability relies on internal models that predict and evaluate sensory outcomes to adjust motor commands. Even infants anticipate object properties for efficient grasping, suggesting the use of internal models. However, how internal models are adapted in early childhood remains largely unexplored. This study investigated a naturalistic force adaptation task in 1.5-, 3-year-olds, and young adults. Participants opened a drawer with temporarily increased resistance, creating sensory prediction errors between predicted and actual drawer dynamics. After perturbation, all age groups showed lower peak speed, longer movement time, and more movement units with trial-wise changes analyzed as adaptation process. Results revealed no age differences in adapting peak speed and movement units, but 1.5- and 3-year-olds exhibited higher trial-to-trial variability and were slower in adapting their movement time, although they also adapted their movement time more strongly. Upon removal of perturbation, we found significant aftereffects across all age groups, indicating effective internal model adaptation. These results suggest that even 1.5-year-olds form internal models of force parameters and adapt them to reduce sensory prediction errors, possibly through more exploration and with more variable movement dynamics compared to adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.